Sound Off: Did the Supreme Court make the right ruling on prayer before meetings?

Fri, May 9, 2014 @ 4:27 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity. This latest ruling is consistent with past decisions about prayer in public places. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the majority decision that forcing clergy to scrub the prayers of references to Jesus Christ and other sectarian religious figures would turn officials into censors. Instead, Kennedy said, the prayers should be seen as ceremonial and in keeping with the nation’s traditions. We asked members of the Times-Union/Jacksonville.com Email Interactive Group whether they agreed or disagreed with the high court’s ruling. Here is a representative sampling of the responses:

Frankly, I could have lived with a decision that went either way. I would have been perfectly happy to see an opening prayer removed from any public meeting if only because such a prayer will always exclude someone and it is not necessary for the proper conduct of such meetings. Justice Kennedy worried about censorship by clergy, but this ruling will lead to someone feeling a certain prayer is coercive and back to court we go. Salute the flag and then get on with the public’s business.

Dennis Egan, Jacksonville

I am against saying a prayer at the beginning of town meetings for the following reason: Any meeting attendee not a follower of Christianity who silently refuses to pray will draw attention from others and may feel ostracized. Public prayer at town meetings must rotate religions on a scheduled timetable; not to do so may indicate a prejudice toward nonbelievers and followers of other faiths.

Rick Mansfield, Ponte Vedra Beach

I’m wondering why we even need a ruling. Can’t Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. pray privately at any time they wish? If a child wishes to pray at school and he prays silently, who would stop him? Who would be offended? ... Although I am a Christian, I have no desire to pray aloud in public if others feel excluded.

Linda Willson, Southside

I agree with the decision. Although there is a wide range of beliefs in this nation, still over 85% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. I believe the principles of most non-Christian beliefs are also comparable with the sentiments included in these types of ceremonial prayers. To prohibit these practices would erode part of the historic and valuable traditions of our nation.

Christine Kelso Holland, Ed.D., Orange Park

As someone who strongly supports the separation of church and state, I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling allowing Christian prayers in public places or courts. Not because I think prayer is a problem; if a prayer that was open to all was given, this would not be an issue. Instead though, the court ruled that Christians deserve special treatment, which, as a follower of Jesus, I cannot get behind. People who don’t want to listen to prayer shouldn’t be forced to, period. And at a time when Christian lawmakers are using their religion as an excuse to try and pass discriminatory bills (re: LGBT, women’s rights) allowing more religious influence into the government is not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

Emily Timbol, Avondale

Supreme Court members are appointed for life. They do not have to bow down to what is popular. This body especially should re-study the founding principles on which this country was formed and [the court’s] position was created. No, I do not support Justice Kennedy and his position.

Thaddaeus J. Wilson, Jacksonville

I agree with the decision by the court because I think our Constitution says freedom OF religion not FROM religion.

Cecille Hammond, Switzerland

To ask American citizens to scrub their prayers of any distinctive references to God amounts to establishing a national religion of Unitarianism. To forbid prayers at all is to establish a national religion of secular humanism. Either of these actions would violate the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. ... There may be situations in which citizens voluntarily choose to make their prayers more generic, but government should have no role whatsoever in the choice to do so.

Jay Haug, Ponte Vedra Beach

I think that in this country, the majority should rule. Not dictate, but rule. If more people want prayer to be woven into public gatherings, it is OK with me. However, it is also OK with me if people choose not to bow their heads and join in a public prayer. As long as they are quiet and respectful of others, they should be free to do what they want. ...

Michael H. Lawrence, Jacksonville

Praying to open a meeting or at a graduation ceremony is practicing our freedom of religion. It is not trying to establish any religion. It’s perfectly legal according to the Constitution.

Mike Gerst, Jacksonville Beach

I 100 percent agree with their ruling. As long as there is breath in my body, I will never give up my right to free speech, which means I will pray any place and any time I am lead to pray. I have Cherokee ancestry. And I can tell you if you told them that they could not pray at their meetings, they would say not to come if it offends you or ask you to leave and never come back. Limiting prayer will bring much worse things for this country than we could ever imagine .

Dave Kitchen, Townsend, Ga.

Finally a case where the Supreme Court properly interpreted the intentions of our Founding Fathers and the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our nation was founded. Perhaps if there were a little more prayer in public places, such as schools, there were would be far less violence, which seems to be increasing in direct proportion to the liberal desire to kick God out of our society.

Chris Tidball, St. Johns

I remember the olden days when my primary school classes opened each day with a prayer or a scripture reading and then a pledge of allegiance to the flag. It ruined the rhythm of our allegiance cadence when the phrase “under God” was added. Mainly the prayer and pledge were just something to be gotten through. ... With the governmental rituals, I suspect that most officials and attendees give little thought to the content of prayers, whether teaching a lesson from the New Testament, the Torah, the Koran, or a selection of the sayings of the Buddha or Confucius. If we actually heeded the lesson, we wouldn’t have the embarrassing mess to be found in many civic meetings. ... Just as chaplains in the military can meet the needs of soldiers and sailors from all faiths, the deliverer of the invocation should give proper respect to others’ beliefs.

Howard Denson, Jacksonville

Just another step backwards. As Thomas Jefferson said, religion is between the individual and his maker. Our freedom from religion (cults), which is the base for freedom of religion (cults), is being attacked every day.

Bob Rutter, Neptune Beach

This truly is a terrible and offensive decision. ... Religious ceremonies simply have no place in any government functions. Apparently, the justices are voting solely based on political considerations. Perhaps we citizens should vote for Supreme Court judges and for limited terms, rather than allow the professional politicians to confirm presidential appointees for life or not. That is how democracies operate. It is worth trying.

Louis R. Franzini, Ph.D., St. Augustine

It’s about time the Supremes put God back in the country as our forefathers had intended. Saying a prayer doesn’t harm anyone, even non-believers, but it helps millions of Americans who are believers.

Michael Payne, Fernandina Beach,

I whole heartedly agree. It is about time some common sense prevailed in this country about our heritage. ... which just happen to be Christian in spite of what the ultra-liberals what it to be. ... I say Thank GOD for this decision.

John Simmons, Jacksonville

In this, as in almost all of the recent 5-4 decisions on church/state relations, the conservative majority has chosen to weaken the right of the public to be shielded from religious speech in government settings. Christian fundamentalists, the driving force behind this shift, believe that they have a duty to spread the gospel. This is perfectly OK in a church or on a street corner. It is not OK when public government meetings are involved because it violates my right not to have to hear their religious message. The hard right on the Supreme Court has erred again.

Samuel F. Hart, Southside

No one says you have to pray. Come late, whistle a tune, check your text messages. We have become a nation that is ruled by the few. Recently, at a college, there was to be a fundraiser in support of heart disease. ONE student was offended by the title of the event. So it was cancelled! People should start putting on their big boy pants and accept that, yes, you have free speech, but that doesn’t preclude others from having the same rights.